The High Court of Andhra Pradesh, presided over by Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari, has dismissed a Civil Revision Petition challenging the refusal of a Trial Court to reject a plaint on the grounds of limitation. The Court held that when the date of the first accrual of a cause of action is disputed, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact which cannot be decided summarily at the threshold under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
The petitioners (defendants) sought the rejection of a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction, arguing it was barred by limitation under Article 58 of the Limitation Act. They contended the cause of action first arose in 2005 when they denied the plaintiff’s title in a previous suit. The Trial Court rejected this application, holding that the plaint averments must be taken at face value. The High Court affirmed this, dismissing the revision petition.
Background of the Case
The respondent (plaintiff) initially filed a suit for perpetual injunction (O.S.No.1492 of 2005) against the petitioners, which was dismissed in 2016. Subsequently, the respondent filed a new suit (O.S.No.230 of 2021) for declaration of title and permanent injunction. In this second suit, the petitioners filed an application under Order VII Rule 11(d) CPC, asserting that the suit was barred by limitation because the title had been denied in the written statement of the 2005 suit, and thus the three-year limitation period under Article 58 of the Limitation Act had long expired.
The plaintiff-respondent countered that the cause of action for the declaration suit arose only on August 15, 2021, when the defendants allegedly attempted to trespass and set up a false claim of ownership.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Petitioners: Sri B. Nalin Kumar, learned senior counsel, argued that limitation is a pure question of law in this context. He submitted that since the defendants denied the plaintiff’s title in their 2005 written statement, the “right to sue first accrued” then. He emphasized that under Article 58, successive violations do not give rise to fresh causes of action. Relying on Nikhila Divyang Mehta v. Hitesh P. Sanghvi, he argued that the court should look at the documents filed with the plaint (specifically the judgment of the previous suit) to determine that the suit is ex-facie barred.
Plaintiff-Respondent’s Stand: The respondent maintained that the application was premature and misconceived. It was argued that the hostile act of August 15, 2021, constituted the actual cause of action for the declaration of title, and the suit filed in 2021 was well within the three-year limit.
The Court’s Analysis
The High Court examined the scope of Order VII Rule 11 CPC and Article 58 of the Limitation Act. Key observations included:
- Strict Adherence to Plaint Averments: Referring to Dahiben v. Arvindbhai Kalyanji Bhanusali, the Court noted that only the plaint averments and the material filed along with the plaint are to be considered. The defense of the defendant is irrelevant at this stage.
- Mixed Question of Law and Fact: The Court observed that while limitation can sometimes be a pure question of law, it becomes a mixed question of law and fact when the date of the first accrual of the cause of action is disputed.
“If the defendant disputes the date mentioned in the plaint… then the first question for determination would be what is the date of accrual of cause of action firstly… This would require evidence.” - Nature of Denial: The Court scrutinized the previous judgment of 2005. It found that the defendants had merely claimed the plaintiff’s vendor’s vendor was not the “exclusive owner.” The Court remarked:
“So, at best the defendants’ case was of ‘no exclusive title’, but not the denial of complete title. ‘No exclusive’ means not the sole owner… but along with others.” Consequently, it held there was no “clear and unequivocal” denial of title in 2005 to trigger the limitation under Article 58. - Article 58 vs. Article 65: Referring to N. Thajudeen v. Tamil Nadu Khadi and Village Industries Board, the Court clarified that in suits for declaration of title with consequential relief like recovery of possession, the limitation might be governed by Article 65 (12 years) rather than Article 58.
The Decision
Justice Ravi Nath Tilhari concluded that the Trial Court did not act illegally or without jurisdiction. Since the plaint alleged a cause of action in 2021, the suit appeared within time on its face. The dispute over whether the cause of action actually arose earlier is a matter for trial.
The Civil Revision Petition was dismissed at the admission stage. No order was made as to costs.
